Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Science v Religion

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one.. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes..'

'So who created them ?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '

' Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so... So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

There once was a monkey and a mouse. The mouse believed in god, and the monkey did not. They were sitting around one day debating theism when they saw smoke. The monkey started running and the mouse fell on his knees and started praying for God to put out the fire. The monkey lived to eat many bananas and the mouse made an interestingly shaped pile of theistic ashes. The moral of the story is, monkeys like bananas and I like stories.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

This covers that torrent of BS in the OP nicely. Though I doubt you'll stick around to read it.

I read it. It is totally wrong.

Quote:

Sixth - "Evil is simply the absence of God"? - What passage does the theist cite here? This contradicts passages that affirm that 'god' is the omnipotent creator. It also directly contradict: Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

There is no one-to-one correspondence between English and Hebrew. In Hebrew, 'ra' usually refers to adversity or affliction. The meaning is dependent upon context, just as 'green' in English can refer to a color (e.g., 'the grass is green') or money (e.g., 'give me some green'). The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God punishing Israel for disobedience, forcing them to experience calamity as a consequence for their sin. Many translations of the Bible actually do translate it as 'calamity' or 'disaster'.

This covers that torrent of BS in the OP nicely. Though I doubt you'll stick around to read it.

I read it. It is totally wrong.

Quote:

Sixth - "Evil is simply the absence of God"? - What passage does the theist cite here? This contradicts passages that affirm that 'god' is the omnipotent creator. It also directly contradict: Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

There is no one-to-one correspondence between English and Hebrew. In Hebrew, 'ra' usually refers to adversity or affliction. The meaning is dependent upon context, just as 'green' in English can refer to a color (e.g., 'the grass is green') or money (e.g., 'give me some green'). The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God punishing Israel for disobedience, forcing them to experience calamity as a consequence for their sin. Many translations of the Bible actually do translate it as 'calamity' or 'disaster'.

It's totally wrong but that's the only point you could bring up?

Still not sure how bringing calamity, affliction or disaster sits well with "God is love" or "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"

Is this a variant of Nixon's "If the President does it, it's not illegal"?

Oh and God did create evil - read Genesis 2-3.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

There are lots of other points that I could bring up, but this point was the most salient. I could also bring up the fact that the writer of the article totally misunderstands the implications that the moral argument for God has with regard to the ontology of morality (i.e., it reflects essence of God such that violation of moral law constitutes a digression from the ideal of personhood).

Quote:

Still not sure how bringing calamity, affliction or disaster sits well with "God is love" or "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"

'God is love' does not mean that God has a responsibility to give us whatever we want or do whatever makes us happy in this lifetime.

You know, if I stumble onto a theist forum and I see someone post something about a particular argument and I say, "That's totally wrong." and when pressed reply, "It is totally wrong because it is wrong." I don't think I would be afforded much respect.

There are lots of other points that I could bring up, but this point was the most salient. I could also bring up the fact that the writer of the article totally misunderstands the implications that the moral argument for God has with regard to the ontology of morality (i.e., it reflects essence of God such that violation of moral law constitutes a digression from the ideal of personhood).

Quote:

Still not sure how bringing calamity, affliction or disaster sits well with "God is love" or "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"

'God is love' does not mean that God has a responsibility to give us whatever we want or do whatever makes us happy in this lifetime.

No, but telling me that he is a loving being who also wants to give a group or a person "grievous affliction; adversity; misery:" (dictionary.com definition of "calamity&quot for a slight affront to his ego ( what he calls "sin&quot cancels out the idea of God as a loving parent that you and other Christians espouse.

That point was the most salient and it's been knocked down twice.

Now you want to move onto the "morality is the essence of God" argument? You know that the Bible stands against you there also, right? The only way that God's essence has anything to do with morality is that you believe that he can change moral law as he sees fit when it comes to his actions.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

PS: The student was Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein wrote a book titled 'God vs. Science' in 1921.....

Like most "honest" theist pieces of propaganda. That is all a lie.

As far as everyone needing faith in something, check here for fallacies of equivocation :

JcGadfly already pointed to the other article that overturns your original nonsense.

Did you really think that none of us had ever heard that one before ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

No, but telling me that he is a loving being who also wants to give a group or a person "grievous affliction; adversity; misery:" (dictionary.com definition of "calamity&quot for a slight affront to his ego ( what he calls "sin&quot cancels out the idea of God as a loving parent that you and other Christians espouse.

I haven't espoused anything except that the article is wrong. I was simply correcting an error in the article that you've cited.

Quote:

That point was the most salient and it's been knocked down twice.

Just saying 'it has been knocked down' does not make it so. In fact, you have not even disputed the point I was making, which is that the verse in no way shows that God created evil. Please tell me what part of your post 'knocks it down'.

Quote:

Now you want to move onto the "morality is the essence of God" argument?

You asked if there were other points I could raise, and now you are reprimanding me for bringing up something different?

Quote:

You know that the Bible stands against you there also, right? The only way that God's essence has anything to do with morality is that you believe that he can change moral law as he sees fit when it comes to his actions.

I know what the Bible says. But now you are simply throwing red herrings and pulling subjects out of left field.

No, but telling me that he is a loving being who also wants to give a group or a person "grievous affliction; adversity; misery:" (dictionary.com definition of "calamity&quot for a slight affront to his ego ( what he calls "sin&quot cancels out the idea of God as a loving parent that you and other Christians espouse.

I haven't espoused anything except that the article is wrong. I was simply correcting an error in the article that you've cited.

Quote:

That point was the most salient and it's been knocked down twice.

Just saying 'it has been knocked down' does not make it so. In fact, you have not even disputed the point I was making, which is that the verse in no way shows that God created evil. Please tell me what part of your post 'knocks it down'.

Quote:

Now you want to move onto the "morality is the essence of God" argument?

You asked if there were other points I could raise, and now you are reprimanding me for bringing up something different?

Quote:

You know that the Bible stands against you there also, right? The only way that God's essence has anything to do with morality is that you believe that he can change moral law as he sees fit when it comes to his actions.

I know what the Bible says. But now you are simply throwing red herrings and pulling subjects out of left field.

1. The only reason you have given for the error is that you don't like what it says and a belief that "when God says he brings bad stuff he doesn't really mean bad stuff - besides they deserved it" based on the belief you espouse that God can visit massive punishment on people because his ego isn't getting a good enough massage aka "unbelief".

2. Indeed, saying it is not enough. That's why I did it twice. Again, God created evil in Genesis chapters 2-3 when he rigged the test in Eden.. Just because you want to use a translation that is further removed from the original to make your God sound like less of a bastard doesn't change things. I still don't know how creating "calamity" or "disaster" is less bad than creating "evil".

3. I was simply moving on. If you can't see where God has committed immoral acts in the Bible (while punishing humans for those same acts) you must not know what it says - or do you just not read those parts? You claim that morality is in God's nature - the Bible shows the contrary.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

No, but telling me that he is a loving being who also wants to give a group or a person "grievous affliction; adversity; misery:" (dictionary.com definition of "calamity&quot for a slight affront to his ego ( what he calls "sin&quot cancels out the idea of God as a loving parent that you and other Christians espouse.

I haven't espoused anything except that the article is wrong. I was simply correcting an error in the article that you've cited.

Quote:

That point was the most salient and it's been knocked down twice.

Just saying 'it has been knocked down' does not make it so. In fact, you have not even disputed the point I was making, which is that the verse in no way shows that God created evil. Please tell me what part of your post 'knocks it down'.

Quote:

Now you want to move onto the "morality is the essence of God" argument?

You asked if there were other points I could raise, and now you are reprimanding me for bringing up something different?

Quote:

You know that the Bible stands against you there also, right? The only way that God's essence has anything to do with morality is that you believe that he can change moral law as he sees fit when it comes to his actions.

I know what the Bible says. But now you are simply throwing red herrings and pulling subjects out of left field.

1. The only reason you have given for the error is that you don't like what it says

No, I mentioned specifically the translation from Hebrew. Now you are projecting ideas about my motivations for things. Are you a mind reader?

I specifically noted what it meant in Hebrew. If the context of the Hebrew was such that it meant that God literally created evil, then I would have noted that.

Quote:

besides they deserved it" based on the belief you espouse that God can visit massive punishment on people because his ego isn't getting a good enough massage aka "unbelief".

Again, where did I mention anything about unbelief?

Quote:

2. Indeed, saying it is not enough. That's why I did it twice.

Merely saying something multiple times does not make it anymore true.

Quote:

God created evil in Genesis chapters 2-3 when he rigged the test in Eden..

Are you acknowledging that the verse in Isaiah does not mean what todangst said it meant?

Quote:

Just because you want to use a translation that is further removed from the original

LOL. So you have epistemic authority over actual biblical scholars now? Somehow, you are privy over everyone else to what the text means in English provided that it was originally written in Hebrew? Do you speak any Hebrew?

Quote:

to make your God sound like less of a bastard doesn't change things. I still don't know how creating "calamity" or "disaster" is less bad than creating "evil".

That's an incoherent question, like 'How is it less evil for God to create something other than evil?'

Quote:

3. I was simply moving on.

No, you are pulling all of these different points out of left field whilst launching character attacks against me and making unsubstantiated claims about my motivations for things. You haven't even begun to address the points I've raised.

Are you acknowledging that the verse in Isaiah does not mean what todangst said it meant?

Samuel 16:14-15 states, "But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee."

I Kings 22:23:

Now therefore, behold, the Eternal hath put a lying spirit (Ruach Sheker) in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Eternal hath spoken evil concerning thee.

isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Judges 9:23, "God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem."

2 Chronicles 18:21 " 'I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. " 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

No, but telling me that he is a loving being who also wants to give a group or a person "grievous affliction; adversity; misery:" (dictionary.com definition of "calamity&quot for a slight affront to his ego ( what he calls "sin&quot cancels out the idea of God as a loving parent that you and other Christians espouse.

I haven't espoused anything except that the article is wrong. I was simply correcting an error in the article that you've cited.

Quote:

That point was the most salient and it's been knocked down twice.

Just saying 'it has been knocked down' does not make it so. In fact, you have not even disputed the point I was making, which is that the verse in no way shows that God created evil. Please tell me what part of your post 'knocks it down'.

Quote:

Now you want to move onto the "morality is the essence of God" argument?

You asked if there were other points I could raise, and now you are reprimanding me for bringing up something different?

Quote:

You know that the Bible stands against you there also, right? The only way that God's essence has anything to do with morality is that you believe that he can change moral law as he sees fit when it comes to his actions.

I know what the Bible says. But now you are simply throwing red herrings and pulling subjects out of left field.

1. The only reason you have given for the error is that you don't like what it says

No, I mentioned specifically the translation from Hebrew. Now you are projecting ideas about my motivations for things. Are you a mind reader?

I specifically noted what it meant in Hebrew. If the context of the Hebrew was such that it meant that God literally created evil, then I would have noted that.

Quote:

besides they deserved it" based on the belief you espouse that God can visit massive punishment on people because his ego isn't getting a good enough massage aka "unbelief".

Again, where did I mention anything about unbelief?

Quote:

2. Indeed, saying it is not enough. That's why I did it twice.

Merely saying something multiple times does not make it anymore true.

Quote:

God created evil in Genesis chapters 2-3 when he rigged the test in Eden..

Are you acknowledging that the verse in Isaiah does not mean what todangst said it meant?

Quote:

Just because you want to use a translation that is further removed from the original

LOL. So you have epistemic authority over actual biblical scholars now? Somehow, you are privy over everyone else to what the text means in English provided that it was originally written in Hebrew? Do you speak any Hebrew?

Quote:

to make your God sound like less of a bastard doesn't change things. I still don't know how creating "calamity" or "disaster" is less bad than creating "evil".

That's an incoherent question, like 'How is it less evil for God to create something other than evil?'

Quote:

3. I was simply moving on.

No, you are pulling all of these different points out of left field whilst launching character attacks against me and making unsubstantiated claims about my motivations for things. You haven't even begun to address the points I've raised.

Are you acknowledging that the verse in Isaiah does not mean what todangst said it meant?

1. You mentioned that the Hebrew had multiple translations. The KJV (being closer to the original) used evil. you cited other versions that used the more politically correct translations.

2. see 1.

3. As you have not refuted my statements, I think I've done more than say it. Bring a refutation if you have one instead of just claiming that I haven't discussed your points to a manner that you can't refute.

3. The fact that God acknowledges that he creates evil in Is. 45:7 is not a claim that the verse was the first time God created evil.

4. Are you an actual biblical scholar? If they support your side, bring their evidence. Honestly, you're making this harder than it should be. Until you bring up more than your own opinion, I feel no need to bring up more than mine.

5. You hold the position that God didn't create evil but created calamity and disaster. If you believe they are different, say so.

6. see 3.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

The professors in the theist version's are always arrogant and retarded....

Quote:

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

I mean, this professor actually agrees with this stupid strawman of science. This is more the theist fantasizing about victory over the unbeliever than anything else.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

This person makes the false assumption that beliefs individuals hold remain the same throughout their lives.

I once wrote a poem with the line "A god there must be because "why" is an infinite question".

That line showed my ignorance at the time, no matter how pretty the line might sound.

Albert Einstein and even Thomas Jefferson held some sort of belief outside of science. BUT what both of them held more sacred than their personal beliefs, was the ability to have their claims kicked around and tested.

And in one of Einstein's last letters he called the god of the Abraham traditions "noble but CHILDISH" myth.

Einstein was also living in a very religious climate where being openly "godless" would get you demonized and considered and outcast and despot. So he lived in a climate where his promotion of skepticism had to be worded carefully and had to placate at the same time, the social norms.

He would not have considered any of the fantastic claims of the Hebrew or Christian traditions scientifically credible in the least. The closest anyone could argue would have been a "god" merely being the laws of nature. If he were alive today, I would highly suspect that because of the increasing acceptance of skepticism would be an open atheist even if he still might be a secular Jew.

People change over time. I do not believe the same things I did when I was a teen. And as cleaver as I was in writing a pretty poem, I no longer believe in a specific god or even Einstein's "god of nature".

I get sick of theists twisting the words of scientists, who may have personal beliefs, but would also at the same time refuse to mix the two and most certainly would not support the right wing thumping "Gawad feren" Merka people like Pat Robertson promote.

Even if Richard Dawkins came out tomorrow and said, "I now believe in a god", as smart as he is, he would still be subject to the rigors of testing and falsification and if he couldn't do that or refused to do that, there still would be absolutely no reason to take the claim seriously.

This is no different that when Muslims say, "Arabs were smart and invented algebra, so therefor Allah is the one true god".

Having a degree and being smart does not mean that you are right about everything you utter.

What this moron would not admit to is that Einstein, even if we bought this stupid argument on face value, WOULD BE OPEN TO SCRUTINY AND TESTING.

This is nothing more than the stereotypical quote mining to jump a huge gap to a specific god which Einstein specifically denied.

Newton believed in a god too, but he also thought that Alchemy would become a lagit science.

This gap jumping is not exclusive to god belief. I have also seen science lovers jump the gap from the manipulation of a proton to making the transporter of Star Trec a possibility.

This flawed gap jumping is the refusal to connect the dots through scientific method and assumes an answer before actual data collection and testing.

It amounts to, "This person believes this, this person is smart, so this god(insert label here) must be real because the person claiming it is smart"

There are Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists all over the world with PHDs in one thing or another, but that only makes them smart, that does not make them automatically right about every claim they make.

The only way to insure quality control of data is to test and falsify it. Unless one is willing to have what they claim tested, no matter how smart they are, you are asking for trouble by blindly buying the claim, no matter who is claiming it.

Einstein would not want us blindly accepting anything he put forth. He most certainly would call this person a fool and a dishonest lier for twisting his words and the full context of his life and work.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

OK, this very fascinating side discussion could be quite interesting. When I get back from work tonight, perhaps I will jump in.

Before that transpires, I would like to have a look at the story in the OP.

First off, it is an email forward that has been verified as having existed for at least 15 years. Now that, in itself, does not kill the story. However, the idea that yet another theist is regurgitating a feel good story does not bode well for the veracity of the anecdote. That and why is the professor not named also spells a bad score for the question of whether it could have happened.

We can go farther with this. It is well known where Einstein went to school and under what circumstances. If the story could be true, it must have happened at ETH Zurich in the fall of 1896. Now this is a technical college specializing in science and engineering. In fact, it compares to M.I.T. As academic institutions go.

They do not even have a philosophy department. OK, I suppose that they may well have had at least one faculty member who was trained in philosophy. Most such schools do.

With that much in hand, the story also seems to be improbable on a number of additional grounds. Not that it would really be possible to come up with probability for the various details but one could posit 0.1 as an arbitrary probability for each factor and see where this takes us.

Einstein was raised as a non-observant Jew.

Probability that he would acknowledge the existence of Satan: 0.1

Probability that he would refer to “the bible”: 0.1

Probability that he would accept the professor's “christian brother” as a valid concept: 0.1